Boeing is ending 2012 on a high note. For the first time in a decade, the Seattle-based company is ending the year as the world's No. 1 airplane manufacturer, outselling and delivering more jets than its closest competitor, the French company Airbus, the Seattle Times reports. Boeing's tally for commercial jet deliveries this year is 585. It's the highest total ever, excluding 1999, when the last-of-the-line McDonnell Douglas jets bumped up deliveries. According to the Times' end-of-year… (www.usatoday.com) More...

Why are you ignorants focussing your hate on France. Airbus and EADS are NOT french companies, Germany's share in both companies are equal to France's share, and Spain is shareholder as well. Do you hate all these contries because they contribute to compete (quite successfully) with your Holy Boeing?

My friend, this is not about hate at all, it is about pride in our nation's product. France, Germany and Spain are beautiful countries with wonderful people, but I'm sure they feel the same pride when Airbus is ahead in sales.Since both manufacturers use basically similar engines and both build good airframes,I think what it boils down to is that Boeing's over all philosophy is "computer enhanced pilot control" while the Airbus philosophy is "pilot enhanced computer control".These sales may be reflecting more of a real carrier/pilot preference in these two philosophies.

Most who comment unfortunately do not understand the aircraft market. Boeing is ahead this year and Airbus may be next year. Both produce excellent aircraft but it is a matter of manufacturing slot availability, financing and customer choise that determines who delivers the most in any particualar year.Furthermore units delivered do not reflect revenues. It could ebe that Airbus actually generated more revenue with less unit deliveries.

Hold on buddy, and take a look at the american airliner trend. What us carrier is buying any jumbojet? None. It is not the pressure from boeing. If that is the case, united would not have ordered the a350 to replace the 747. The most common wide body jumbo in the Us is the 777-200. It is smaller than the 747 and it is a twin but also out performs the a330. Personally i am a boeing guy, i like what they offer. Only the a340-300 looks good in the airbus fleet. You can say airbus is technologically superior all you want just because of what? Fly by wire and side sticks? Give me a break. Airbus follows a philosophy of let the computer fly the plane, Boeing doesn't believe in that. I rather trust the pilot to fly and sure why not give em some computer assistance- Boeing philosophy. Ask pilots which they prefer to fly.

Unfortunately you don't know a great deal about how airplanes are sold and neither do the American people. When the first A-300 came out pressure from banks, Boeing/McD/Lockheed and the White house interceded to stop American carriers from buying the A-300 even though it was a major leap in air transportation efficiency. How do I know? Read the 1972 U.S. Senate and House Aviation Subcommittees transcripts where U.S. carriers admitted that that was the reason why they did not buy Airbus even though over 50% was U.S. content! That is happening today with the A-380! The A-380 is a far superior aircraft to anything Boeing can offer for high density long hauls. Why is it that Singapore, BA, Lufthansa, China,Korea,The Middle East carriers etc. are operating A-380? Are they stupid?? They just happend to be making tons of $$ with that aircraft whos eload factos are averaging in the high 80%-mid 90%.As to pilot's preference. I haven't heard any pilot, and I deal a great deal with them, flying an Airbus complaining about it only the pro Boeing propaganda mills which obviously you swallow hook line and sinker! Of course Boeing delivers a good product but it has never been known to be in the forefront of commercial airliner innovation. It is Boeing not Airbus whose aircraft have been lost due to poor structural design! As to management it was Boeing that was embargoed from Defense Contracts because of unethical management practices not Airbus!It's one thing to cheer on the local team but it is quite another when one doesn't know what they are talking about!

I am not naive to how aircraft are sold. I know the history between the two companies. They are both guilty of using politics etc to sell their planes. I do not care for company propaganda, I am more interested in the design, functionality etc of aircraft to make my decision on which I like. I live in Canada but I am not a default Bombardier fanboy. I personally like both bombardier and its rival, Embraer. So because I live in NA I am not on a Boeing bandwagon as you seem to be for the bus. I Boeing is so inferior technology, Airbus would out sell Boeing by a landslide like how both companies did to McDonnell Douglas. You keep saying that the 380 is far superior to what Boeing has put out, so what of the 787 or 747-8? By the way, how is the a380 so popular with passengers in polls when only a small percentage of worldwide travellers ever flown on it? I had said before that I work on these planes for a living and the Boeing planes are not inferior as you claim. Boeing keeps operators in mind when they design their aircraft. I say this because it is easier to work on them- personal experience! So please don't pass my comments of as pro American hurrah. And yes I also work with the A380; it is not as special as you make it out to be. Is not the 787 tech innovative? I am not an Airbus basher, both produce great planes. As stated in an earlier post, the real difference between the two is the way the planes are flown. These days political pressure is not going to cut it when airlines are looking to save and make money buy buying whatever plane is suited to make them profit. Btw, who are the Wright brothers again? Oh ya Americans. America seams to be hated by everyone whether they do good or bad. But that is another discussion. In aviation, who cares who makes what as long as it makes you grin.

Fine so you work on these planes.That means you are a mechanic and do not design planes. Therefore just what qualifies you to coment on Boeing vs. Airbus design/engineering? None! I participated in design/egineering planes for both Boeing and Airbus. I know the design philosophy of both and Boeing always takes the short cut and waits for someone else to take the lead in innovation. Always! Just look at the most recent the copycat 737 MAX!It is Boeing planes that come apart in the air not Airbus! unless you are qualified to comment on aircraft design/engineering you have no case! The 787 is an innovation but not an original one. Airbus designed composites into its aircraft long before Boeing. The reason that Airbus doesn't overhwelmingly outsell Boeing is very simple-slot availability!

Wow you really come off as a narrow minded. Don't assume things, I never said that I was a mechanic. To work on planes could mean any number of things. Btw I am a ramp worker. I also hold a Mechanical engineering diploma, so don't think that I am not allowed to make valid points that don't match your views. Listen, I know you will not be satisfied until everyone runs to Airbus; but what is your occupation- see no assumptions. If you are an engineer

Sorry, got cut off. As I was saying... If you are an engineer, who did you work for first and what part of the design team were you on. When I made the comment about design philosophy, it was really from experience. It is one thing to design something that looks good on paper and it is another to operate and use it. For example: My company has a contract that services 737ng and an A320. The 320 in this case is a freeload version. A320 pros: the rear hold door is centered in the middle of the hold. A320 cons: where to begin... the plane is too high off the ground. Look at all the aircraft of similar size ever made and see how much ground clearance the belly has. The only planes that I should be using a ladder to reach the potable water hatch and properly set the ground power should be wide bodies. The hold doors open outward and with hydraulics too. This is unnecessary for a plane of this size which will be put through many flight cycles a day. It just adds to the maintenance cost. The holds are rather angular on the inside and what is up with the nets! Could they not find a better netting system like what Boeing uses. The 380s nets are fine but the rest of the fleet is bad, especially the 310 with its fish net that tangles strollers and wheel chairs. During push back, the airbus tow bar takes a little more work just to detach it from the nose gear. This is because the locking mechanism allows only a little space to pull it through. 737 pros: The plane is low to the ground so everything is within reach and no I am not short. The holds are semi circular and have a metal floor to make sliding bags down the hold easier. The hold doors are manual and open inwardly. If the belt loader is removed and a last second bag arrives at the plane, the door can be quickly opened and you can hop in the hold- no ladder or anything because of the height. The tow bar btw is rather easy to come off once you remove the lock. 737 cons: the rear hold door is near the very back of the rear hold which means more effort to send the bag to the hold. When you say that Boeing doesn't lead in innovation then what of the APU? Was it not introduced in the 727?

Mechanics,are better qualified.In determining.The ease and maintenance,of the aircraft they work on.They have to deal with the nuances and difficulties.Of each particular aircraft!What might look good on paper,and be a technological innovation.Might,just be nightmare>for mechanics!No matter what is .Mechanics,have to deal with the mess!,Ease of maintenance is important.For faster turnaround times!!!Dispatch reliability!

"Why is it that Singapore, BA, Lufthansa, China,Korea,The Middle East carriers etc. are operating A-380?"

Because the European people (mostly Germans) paid to have the aircraft built and essentially gave them free of charge for five years. Of course Singapore is going to make money. Free airplanes for SIA are the greatest thing to happen in Singapore since they were expelled from Malaysia in '65.

American airlines are savvy and know what they need to make money. That is the reason they exist. No amount of government or bank macinations will stop them from buying an airplane if they thought it would make money. They looked at the costs associated with the A300 and knew they would need to charge $500 for a ticket like the Europeans did for short haul service like LHR to CDG. In the US, similar distances were less than $50.

It is the British and European people that are unaware of aircraft financing. If they knew their politicians were using tax money to buy planes for the likes of China and Middle East carriers, they would be fitting a new blade on the guillotine.

Leaving your statement that SIA is getting A380’s for free stand for what it is, namely ludicrous, it is actually preposterous, but typically American, to say that “Free airplanes for SIA are the greatest thing to happen in Singapore since they were expelled from Malaysia in '65”.

Making out that Singapore is some kind of third World Banana-Republic, kicked out by Malaysia and having to rely on “giveaway planes” just highlights your ignorance, as it is a simple fact, that in terms of purchasing power parity, Singapore has the third highest per capita income in the world, compared with a mere eights place for the US. The Gross Domestic Product at purchasing power parity per capita is the value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given year divided by the average (or mid-year) population for the same year and Singapore’s ranking at position 3 shows clearly and undisputedly that their economic is on much better footing than that of the US.

By the way, the $500 for a ticket LHR CDG must be the price they charge US citizens only, as I get a flight on the same route with BA for £65

You have a good point. Look at Emirates, they have the worlds largest fleet of 777s. They did not want a 747 nor do I think they ever had one, but as soon as the 380 can out they took it? Why hmmm...The trend is for large twins- the 777s success says it all.

Has the investigation to the cause finished yet? No it has not. Don't be so quick to judge. If you are going to say comments like that, think about some of the mishaps Airbus has had too. Did you know that on the demo flight, the a320 crashed because of its fly by wire? What about the wing cracks on the a380? Every new plane has teething problems and don,t be ignorant to think all mishaps on planes are due to design failures. I am sure that Airbus did not foresee such a problem nor did its engine makers expect such failures as seen. The same for bombardier's Q400 landing gear.

Technologically Airbus is superior to Boeing. Aibus has lead in every major innovation in thr past forty years. It was the first long range twin. It was the first Fly By wire. It was the first with Autoland.It was the first with side stick. AND Airbus aircraft have had far fewer crashes than Boeing aircraft over comparable years and fleet size. The A-380 which, incidentally, Boeing was first part of its development then tried to sink it by bad mouthing it is the most popular aicraft with passengers EVER!American carriers haven't bought the A-380 because of American political, banking and Boeing pressure against it. America talks about Free Trade but doesn't practice it.Typical hypocrite!

I have often said Airbus is an incredible simulation of a Boeing aircraft. They are not technically elegent, rather they are crude and old-fashioned in their approach to various systems. The so-called inovations are not new, nor invented by Airbus. Fly by wire and side stick were on military aircraft ages before Airbus drafted their first vellum.

Airbus was not the first with an automatic landing system. The first passenger aircraft to use it was the Lockheed L-1011.

The A380 is not popular with passengers. No one wants to hit immigration and baggage conveyors with 853 strangers. Most airports are too small for safe operation.

You are right about one aspect of why American operators have not bought an A380. Pressure from Boeing. Boeing does this by proving superior product. Sales are the proof of the pudding.

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about or you reject the obvious! Airbus is known for innovation in the commercial aircraft industry.Boeing is not. The 767 didn't come out until long after the A-300 and then , inorder not to appear to be a copy cat, Boeing narrowed the fuseladge, thereby depriving shippers of using the standard LD-3 cargo container.Airbus had fly by wire long before any fly by wire was widely applied in the military as was the side stick. Autoland was first on the Airbus leet as a standard-no one else. The L-1011 had a partial not fully automated system and most carrier did not buy it because of its primitive nature!Obviously you don't read the passenger preference polls which puts the A-380 far and above any other aircraft! Your comments are based on blind bias-typical of narrow minded Americans- who have been so brainwashed about how great they are that they can't take it when someone else out performs them. Just keep in mind where the jet engine came from,The swept wing.The first jet fighter. commercial jet liner.The Tri-jet. The rear mounted twin jet. The space program. The instrument landing system. The RADAR etc. Europe is far ahead in the application of satellite NAVAIDS!America copies it rarely leads although it tries to make it look as though it were the innovator!

It is difficult to say who invented what because in many engineering disciplines the mathematicians are sometimes centuries ahead of any practiced art. There can be no dispute amoung right thinking people as to the who made the first sucessful passenger jet. That was when Juan Trippe invited guests to be the first passengers to fly from Baltimore to Paris on a Pan Am Boeing 707 in 1958. Jets were known as a parlor trick before the common era, so some 20 centuries later Europeans and Brittons can claim invention? No they were simply developers of an idea. Hundreds of years ago Chinese people used jet propulsion for celebrations.

Radar would not exist without the AMERICAN invention and manufacture of the Klystron and Magnetron vacuum tubes.

The L-1011 was still first, and did a snappy job of putting the nose wheel astride the centerline without human intervention in zero-zero visibility conditions in the tests I wittnessed in Palmdale. Did it taxi to the gate and shut off the engines? No, but other than that it was fully automatic.

Would those polls of passengers that prefer the A380 paid for by EADS? You can buy a poll in the Middle East that people feel that Bin Laden was not bad, just "misunderstood."Scientific polls by acredited survey companies would tell a different story, like the A380 is preferred to the A320 for a long distance journey, but those who fly all manner of planes actually do prefer Boeing products over Airbus.

Satellite NAVAIDS are wonderful and can reduce the cockpit burden contributing to the safety of the flight. What happens if it fails or the Americans switch it off? I can navigate with a watch and compass, can the computer flying the Airbus do that?

The 767 was purpose built to use the industry standard LD2 cargo container, where it seems that the LD3 is only standard to Airbus, and even that standard is sullied by the short box (45" v. 63") for the A320.

The de Havilland DH 106 Comet was the first production commercial jetliner.

Developed and manufactured by de Havilland at its Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom headquarters, the Comet 1 prototype first flew on 27 July 1949, whilst the 707, granted, a very good aircraft(!!), was developed from the Boeing 367-80, a prototype jet first flown in 1954. A larger fuselage cross-section and other modifications resulted in the initial production 707-120, powered by Pratt & Whitney JT3C turbojet engines, which first flew on December 20, 1957.

The fact that the Havilland DH 106 Comet did have some catastrophic failures due to metal fatigue around the square windows is neither disputed or “swept under the carpet”, as these shortcoming served the industry to grasp the whole concept of metal fatigue, resulting in safer and better aircraft subsequently.

It’s the price you pay if you are the first in developing a completely new concept!!

Boeing,has by far produced.The finest products.In the line of B777s,B747-8s,and B787s.Which have not only met the airlines expectations."But,exceeded them.The flying public loves them!Whatever,Boeing is doing.Other U.S. companies should follow their example!

Honestly, there is no surprise that Boeing is #1! Boeing has more to offer its customers! Unlike Airbus who doesn't build good planes like Boeing. I think Airbus doesn't stand a chance against Boeing in 2013! Boeing should always be the worlds #1 plane maker every year!

Right you are. The new 787 & 747-8 are no doubt the best the industry has evr seen of late."If you build a better mouse trap, the world will beat a path to your door-way".The best feature the 787 has is that every fifth tank of fuel, is FREE !Beat that Frenchy, whose A-380 can only be accommodated in, maybe 10 terminals across the planet.FYI, Boeing cranks out one 737 each and every day from the Renton facility .THE most trusted aircraft world-wide !

Not surprising at all ! Great Management , hence good employees, and good products and services . In that order , which is absolutely logical. And , A HAPPY NEW YEAR to all admirers of FLIGHT AWARE . And thanX to them (Flight Aware) for keeping us well informed . All about the good , the bad or the ugly.

If I look at the technical aspects of the aircraft, Boeing wins everytime. If I look at the financing, Airbus has snookered every other player by forcing the European taxpayers to front the loot to put the machines in the hands of customers. There is also a desire of European airlines to want planes made in Europe to keep people in the workforce. Not that they really care, but the PR backlash would be difficult to pave over.

My feeling is this is about to change. The Germans have had it up over the moustache with first paying for reunification, and now the excess spending by foreign European governments. Couple this political ill will to Daimler AG dumping their massive position in EADS, buyers of Airbus planes will need to start paying for them at delivery. Daimler AG reasoned Mercedes-Benz buyers pay at delivery, so should Airbus purchasers.

The airlines operating the 787 are already smiling about the fuel costs, and MAX customers will be delighting passengers and airlines when they are in service.

As for the NEO, I don't think you will ever hear a waiting passenger say "Goody, we are flying Airbus today."

Yay Boeing ! I know it's the best because every time I have gotten a delay at the airport because of equipment, it was always an Aibus. My son say's."If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going !"Congrats Boeing keep up the GREAT work !

It's not the amount of planes that matter it's the quality, Airbus make far superior planes look at the a380. Plus it shows how ignorant and retarded the yanks are when it calls Airbus French everyone in Europe knows its a European company.